Since there are no details to the arrangement in the public fora, anything we have to say about its nature is pure speculation. You are suuming the darkest scenario without any cause.
Well, gee, I could have trotted out this same statement (albeit with "brightest scenario") when you started throwing around the whole Joint Venture concept. However, that wouldn't have done much to further the discussion. We both have to assume facts not in evidence, but based on the types of deals and arrangements that Disney has undertaken in the recent past it is much more reasonable to assume that this will be another distribution deal. Let Four Seasons have the land, take the risk, build the resort......while Disney gets a fee for allowing it to exist on the grounds of WDW, possibly having a hand in the marketing as well. There are no examples of Disney truely partnering with a firm in Joint Venture on much of anything, where Disney has a hand in the development and building (read: creation), contributes significant capital, assumes significant risks, and shares accordingly in the profits. Your assumption that that is going to be the case is far less grounded in the reality of Disney's business practices than my scenario. 99% of what we talk about here is speculation, but let's at least try to base it on some anecdotal evidence. I see more of such evidence to support my speculation than yours. If you prefer not to speculate then I suppose it gets very quiet around here, very quickly.
The Contemporary and Polynesian were never luxury resorts. They were themed hotels with a highly desireable location. If Disney has the ability to offer a true luxury resort experience, there is nothing in the record to support it.
But you missed the point. I didn't say the CR and Poly were luxury resorts. The point is that back in the late 60's and early 70's, if one were to say that Disney had the ability to offer a themed hotel in a highly desireable location, there would be nothing in the record to support it. Afterall, The
Disneyland Hotel was not a Disney product. It was designed and built by someone else, with Disney getting a piece of the action. Since Disney didn't have the money to bring the Disneyland Hotel to fruition a deal was cut with Jack Wrather to build and operate the hotel. It wasn't until 1988, after Wrather died, that Disney was able to acquire ownership. So I suppose one could say that in the past Disney did farm out hotel developement to someone else. But that was the very first hotel, in a day and age when Disney didn't have the resources available to do it themselves (otherwise they would have). The entire point of the Florida Project was to have a do over, so as to avoid the mistakes made in California. What Disney is now doing doesn't hold true to that intent....and it isn't like Disney doesn't have the money to do it themselves these days. But back to my point, just like Disney had no experience in building themed hotels when WDW was conceived (any hotels, really), today they have a wealth of experience in owning an operating hotels, but are unwilling to take the risk themselves to create a true luxury resort on property. That risk averse posture can be seen so many places throughout Disney today, and while it does mitigate risk, it limits the opportunities for the company to develop things today that will add to the company's legacy and ability to make the same strides over the next 50 years as they have over the last 50.
Disney is not turning over there theme park business. Like 'old Henry' he's farming out some component parts.
There goes Evita again, turning a blind eye
.
Sure, after overpaying an inflated price of $7 billion the leading animation unit falls under Disney. A seperate vertical silo within Dinsey that will have nothing to do with Disney Feature Animation. That, as opposed to having invested far less over time to have Disney Feature Animation maintain their position in the first place. You may be satisfied with all of that, but I'm not.
We know they are de-annexing the land under the fractional and single family homes for the Four Seasons project. That seems clear for obvious taxation and voting rights reasons. What we don't know is if the resort land itself will be de-annexed? And if it will .. is that the hotel/resort only or the golf course areas too? The materials available to Joe Public at this point in time do not make any of that clear. So .. to assume they are doing so for the entire project is just that an assumption.
Information available about the project indicates that the single family homes, along with fractional ownership homes, will be located within the golf community. I'm sure it will be similar to other Four Seasons resorts where the single family and fractional ownership homes are located along the golf course, with the Resort Hotel as a centerpiece. I highly doubt that the homes will be located on a seperate tract of land that can easily be seperated from the rest of the resort. I'm sure Four Seasons isn't signing on to do something that falls outside of their existing, successful model. It's hard to imagine they could de-annex one piece without de-annexing the whole. Again, if we don't have assumptions we all have nothing. It's all about making the most logical and well supported assumptions with the information and experience we do have available.
